On 26/01/07, Mike Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Friday, January 26, 2007 9:59 AM [GMT+1=CET], > Steve Haywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I am most concerned by this posting. The implications seem to me to be > > alarming. > > > > I had been led to believe that as a direct result of the DEFRA cuts > > 180 people had been made redundant. Now I find that this was simply > > not true and that the redundancies would have happened anyhow! > > No, that's not quite the situation, as I understand it. If the cuts had > not > happened there would have been some job losses (possibly all the 180, > possibly not) over an extended period of time, achieved mainly by not > replacing people who left from the relevant bits of BW's workforce, > withoiut > any actua redundancies. In other words no actual people would have lost > their jobs (although some might have had to move from on job to another > within the organisation). As a former TU official, I know that this is > *very* different from making people redundant.
I concede the point absolutely, Mike. I checked it out, and your understanding is correct. There would have been 180 redundancies eventually, cuts or no cuts. But they could have been achieved by natural wastage or voluntary redundancy. The DEFRA announcement ensured that real people lost their livelihood. Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
